Talk:Wolf Hall

Thomas More in "Wolf Hall"

I know the portuguese translation of the novel, and from what I have read, it really shows Thomas More in a bad light. I hope those who know the original english text can provide some direct quotes. In the novel, Hilary Mantel says that Thomas More God has a "love of carnage", he puts Richard Rich shouting to him almost the exact relation of him having tortured people that his found in John Foxe, "Book of Martyrs", despite being a highly biased source, due to his anti-Catholicism. She also ends by saying something like Thomas More was "joking" with the executioner before his death. Those who have read the novel can provide much more evidence that Thomas More is portrayed in a very negative way in the novel. This is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Thomas More, where it says: "The novelist Hilary Mantel portrays More as a religious and masochistic fanatic in her 2009 novel Wolf Hall, which is written from the perspective of Thomas Cromwell, whom it portrays favourably."85.243.69.92 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the Portugese translation is pretty faithful to the original! Yes the book portrays More joking with the executioner: "More is at the block, he [Cromwell] can see him now...He is speaking to the headsman, apparently making some quip to him, wiping the drizzle from his face and beard...." [p.649] An example of portraying More in a bad light: "He [Cromwell] cuts in on him [More], incredulous. 'You do nobody harm? What about Bainham, you remember Bainham? You forfeited his goods, committed his poor wife to prison, saw him racked with your own eyes, you locked him in Bishop Stokesley's cellar, you had him back at your own house two days chained upright to a post, you sent him back to Stokesley, saw him beaten and abused for a week, and still your spite was not exhausted: you sent him back to the tower and had him racked again, so that finally his body was so broken that they had to carry him in a chair when they took him to Smithfield to be burned alive. And you say, Thomas More, that you do no harm?'" [p.629] Bluewave (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book, thanks, 85.243... and where your opinion comes into it is the description of More as "the archetipical religious fanatic." This seemed to me to represent a point of view as to what an archetypical religious fanatic is like, and also makes the portrayal of More seem rather one-dimensional which is a disservice to a great book by a fine writer. The wording you have now is better. pablo 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We also shouldn't forget that many serious historians dismiss the claims of torture made by John Foxe in his "Book of Martyrs" as anti-Catholic inventions, because the author of it supported torture and execution by hanging, drawing and quartering of Catholics. More always denied to have used torture and even swore for God that he never used it. This is another point to make in the sense the novel is controversial in the way it shows More.82.154.84.245 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.84.245 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

counter point

Is there any evidence from people who didn't like the book (even though it was a prize winner)? because it would be good to balance it's reception under "Critical reaction". Thanks Manytexts (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC adaptation - needs expansion and more details

I added a few bits about the BBC Two production including recent casting news, but I am not a regular editor and someone else should probably proof it. I know I've also read other bits about it, such as HBO involvement. Thanks! --24.106.177.2 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not a regular editor. Can someone who is add this article? (Link) Woodnwheel (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

The author is known for her criticism of the Catholic Church and this has led to speculation as to whether Wolf Hall is anti-Catholic, but I reverted the addition of a selection of quotes on the subject because I believe it fails our policy on neutrality, and suggested the editor (with fewer than 50 edits) who added it should discuss the topic here first. As I've reverted it twice now I won't do so again, but if the information returns I will tag the article as non-neutral. I'd also appreciate a more experienced editor reviewing the information. This is Paul (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing examples of other commentators - one a very well respected historian Eamon Duffy - naming the author and the book as anti-Catholic is not an example of non-neutrality. It's an example of what is being written about publicly about the author of the book and the book. It's not just the reputation of the author that has led to charges of anti-Catholicism, it is the actual content of the book that has done this.

The fact that I am an infrequent editor should have no bearing on what I have to say if it is a valid, cited addition, which it is.

BealBoru

Regardless of how often you edit, if you wish to add controversial material to articles, then you need to to be familiar with our editing policies. An argument citing anti-Catholic bias should be counterbalanced with sources that attempt to offer an opposing view. Are there others who have argued the book is not anti-Catholic? What we have at present are a couple of random quotes that don't really add any depth to the article, and for this information to be retained you need to present the other side of the argument. I have now tagged this article as being non-neutral, so someone else will be along to review the material. This is Paul (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I was adding information under an already established heading of 'Controversies' which had already mentioned her anti-Catholicism without giving much further information on it or making it central to what the central controversy about her novel was in fact about. I merely added to this by giving citations to articles where this was pointed out by respected, established historians. There was nothing 'random' about my quotes. And in your assertion here you gave as 'support' for your censorship of my points the fact that I had 'fewer than 50 edits' and a gave a call for a 'more experienced editor'. I don't think that my knowledge should depend for validation on how many times I have come onto Wikipedia and edited articles.BealBoru

Generally the more edits someone has the better it is when making edits such as these. You still need to present a balanced argument, which means finding other noted scholars who present the other side of the argument. I can't make it any clearer than that. This is Paul (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your first reason for censoring my contribution was - you stated - because the issue only concerned the TV series and not the novel. When I pointed out to you that the quotes I gave were about the novel and the author you changed your tack and said well then you have to give an opposing view. So which is it? It seems to me that you are very concerned to keep this valid, cited criticism off the wiki page for whatever reason[s] you can come up with. BealBoru